SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparison for Efficacy and Tolerability among Ten Drugs for Treatment of Parkinson's Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Sci Rep · 2017-04-04

DOI: 10.1038/srep45865PMID: 28374775

Open accessresearch-article; Network Meta-Analysis; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a long term disorder affects the central nervous system and we aim to determine the relative efficacy of the current available drugs used in PD. Firstly, we performed a systematic review in current literature and eligible studies were retrieved from online databases, relevant data were extracted. Efficacy of these medications was assessed by different Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scales (UPDRS). Mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) were produced by pairwise or network meta-analysis (NMA). Finally, we performed a cluster analysis for the included medications with respect to their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Pairwise meta-analysis suggests that selegiline had a higher ranking in UPDRS II, UPDRS III and UPDRS total than bromocriptine and levodopa. Selegiline was more tolerable than bromocriptine (OR = 0.62, CI: 0.39 to 0.98) and pramipexole was less tolerable than levodopa (OR = 1.43, CI = 1.00 to 2.04). Results of NMA indicate that patients with levodopa, pramipexole, ropinirole and selegiline exhibited a significantly improved UPDRS III than those with lazabemide. To sum up, levodopa, selegiline, ropinirole and rotigotine were recommended for PD patients as they appeared relatively high efficacy and tolerability.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.